Future Ban on Bump Stocks?

Following the tragedy in Las Vegas recently, there has been an outcry from the media and gun-control activists to ban “bump stocks,” a device used by the shooter in his rampage. A bump stock replaces a rifle’s standard stock and increases the rate of fire of a semi-automatic weapon to mimic that of an automatic weapon.

THE MECHANICS BEHIND THE “BUMP STOCK”

Image courtesy of Wikipedia

As stated, a bump stock replaces the standard rifle stock and uses the energy of the recoil to effectuate rapid fire. The shooter keeps his finger in place on the trigger while exerting backward pressure on the pistol grip, and then exerts forward pressure on the barrel. The rifle is held loosely against the shoulder to allow the stock to rapidly slide back and forth between the shoulder and trigger finger.

When a round is discharged, the rifle will recoil (“bump” back) against the shoulder. The trigger resets, and the non-trigger hand continues to push the rifle forward, away from the body. This causes the trigger to press against the stationary finger again, firing off another round.

It still results in one round being discharge with a single trigger pull and is therefore not a truly automatic rifle. However, the bump stock pushes the trigger forward against the stationary trigger finger rapidly, resulting in the rifle mimicking an automatic weapon.

Since the rifle is held loosely against the shoulder, accuracy is somewhat sacrificed during the operation of a bump stock. What you gain in rate of fire you give up in accuracy.

Granted, it does allow for someone to fire off a number of rounds in a short amount of time, but is it that much faster than an experienced shooter using a standard equipped weapon?

THE “BUMP STOCK” CHALLENGE

That very question was put to the test by marksman Jerry Miculek as he used a traditional AR-15 in a match against someone using an AR-15 with a bump stock. Each had a ten-round magazine, and at the sound of a buzzer, both emptied their magazines at a target down-range.

The result?

There appeared to be no discernible difference in the amount of time it took either of the shooters to run through ten rounds. In other words, an experienced marksman can fire off as many rounds in nearly the same amount of time as someone using a bump stock. But one thing that was evident is that the bump stock proved to be less accurate in the showdown. That could be because of the shooter’s lack of skill or more likely because of the method a bump stock uses in attaining a rapid rate of fire.

See for yourself. Here is a video of the challenge.

Should Bump Stocks be banned? Tell us what you think!

57 comments on “Future Ban on Bump Stocks?”

Comment navigation

as an nra member,i don’t see the logic of a bump stock.anyone who is serious about hunting or just target shooting,a bump stock is useless.its a waste of good ammo.but I do agree with all who stated,if you let the gun control denizens have an inch,they will look to take a mile.you will open a pandoras box.with at last report,300 million guns in this country,unfortunately,some pop tart or criminal will be able to aquire a weapon.that only makes my second amendment rights to carry more important,to protect myself,my family,and co-workers if I find myself in a unforntunate situation!

This is an excuse for more gun control, and the language so far proposed is vague enough to apply to much more than bump stocks. Going along with this will only embolden the anti-gun forces to continue to attack the Second Amendment and our God-given rights to keep and bear arms.

Vague language is the whole point of progressives’ firearms control legislation. With the vague language any chance they get when they have executive power is to push the control to the limit by taking advantage of this language.

If one opposes further control of the BS then how does one argue that a class 3 license is valid and should oppose that as well. The BS is mechanically legal but effectively its a full auto weapon. Opposing any more regulations destroys the credibility of gun owners as responsible and consistent.

I would agree, but having written legislation, the devil is in the details. It was this very reason that ATF approved the bump-stock. There is simply no way you can out law them without opening Pandora’s Box. No matter how you word it you open the door to making virtually every alteration illegal. Remember there is no common sense in a court of law or the twisted mind of anti gun politicians. For twenty years they have been “banning assault weapons” and no two have the same definition. Remember it took 200 years for the court to say it was an individual right and then it was 5 v 4. In legalism the words no, any, and may have no meaning other then what the court wishes them to have.

I dont buy the slippery slope argument. A performance based criteria eliminates that. Since the BS performs like a full auto weapon it is therefore a class 3 conversion. If this then anything isnt a rational argument in fact it shows a lack of substance thats why its used.

“How do you eat an elephant? One bite at a time!” – I truly believe the anti-gunners will win, IF we allow them one small victory at a time. I say no banning of any sort, of any accessory, for any reason unless it violates the “one trigger pull = one round shot” (then it becomes an NFA-controlled item).

This video by Eric and Jerry does reveal several items:
1. Humans can out perform (or come real close to it) any mechanical device.
2. Bump-stocks are not necessarily faster (definitely not more accurate) than an extremely well-trained individual.
3. All semi-automatic weapons have one thing in common, a human. Humans are prone to muscle fatigue and failure which will affect the rate of fire regardless of what accessory is used.

Final thoughts: Any weapon is a tool and any tool/item can become a weapon. It is never the weapon/tool that kills people, it is the person behind said weapon/tool. Humans have been killing each other since the beginning (before firearms) and, unfortunately, will be doing so until the end of time.

Personally, I do not care for the “bump stock”. I like accuracy and I hate wasting good ammunition. Whether or not I support a ban, on that item, is irrelevant, since those decisions are made way above my pay grade and usually without any advice or consent from me. On the other hand, the Bill of Rights is not a guarantee of our right to be armed. The Bill of Rights simply tells you what your rights are. Protecting those Rights is and always be “our responsibility”.

If we accept this argument then we must advocate at zero gun control at all. Guns by their nature and the way we live in close urban suburban areas today demand reasonable controls. Hellor set a good standard for control and we can live by it. Democrats and anti gun fanatics have lost he battle. They cant pass anything and with more conservative judges in the lower courts and the SC they will have zero chance to ban all guns a little at a time

Obviously you have never dealt with the legislature or federal courts. The Constitution grants us the right to face our accuser yet the FISA Court operates in secrecy. The best way to lose a right is to pass a law protecting it. Remember the Clean Water Act? It was intended to protect our natural resources. Under o-bum-a the EPA told ranchers they could not decide how to use their own ponds they had dug for their cattle without governmental approval. Can you imagine how the governmental bureaucrats would interpret any law that would allow them to limit firearms?

I worked for 15 years as an advocate and expert witness before the NJ and PA senate and assembly. I negotiated directly with the NJ Governors staff lawyers. I am well versed in lawmaking and politics. Your argument fails because it can be used to oppose any law with no rational basis. In effect your saying all laws are bad because they may lead to more. Then you must argue that class 3 firearm restrictions should be removed because you support a device that effectively creates one and should not be seen as the same. That kind of thinking gives strength to the gun ban fanatics.

A right is only a right as long as it is absolute. Once it can be denied, for any reason, then it is a mere privilege subject to the whim of the regulator. If the government has the “right” to band any firearm then it has the “right” to band all firearms. You can’t make the argument for one without making the argument for the other.
Let the people give you the power. They will gladly trade freedom for security. then they shall have neither.

Absolutely NOT. Every time you give the anti gun maggots an inch, they will try for a mile. Don’t own one, don’t want one, don’t know what they are good for but don’t tell me I can’t have one. What we need to ban are liberals.

Personally I don’t see the need for them as an AR-15 owner my primary use is for if things get extreamly out of hand & all anarchy breaks out I would like for my rounds to hit the intended target, the “spray & pray” method is not about stopping large number as it just wastes ammo in the long run. Unless you have an endless supply of ammo the bump stop is really a useless item. We have the right to keep & bear arms & don’t see any reason why we should stand ground on this item. Let’s all be responsible in this issue & agree there is no need for this device. Otherwise it will just be more arguement that the anti-gun people will use against us so why not throw them a bone & support the ban of bump sticks.

You don’t understand, it’s not just about the bump stock. The legislation they want to send down would ban anything that increases fire rate. Most glock modifications would be banned, many AR triggers would be banned, stronger springs would be banned. It’s not just the bump stock its targeting all aftermarket parts. If we give them an inch they will take a mile.

I agree. Let’s show some responsibility on this issue. Once Yu are willing to sacrifice accuracy for volume, you lack credibility of your decision to support our cause. As someone who likes to hunt and also wishes to provide protection for my family and also likes to shoot, I prefer accuracy. I prefer to fire one shot, two at most to hunt an animal or bird, and If I am protecting my family, I prefer to fire one shot and hit my target that possibly firing a hundreds and possible hitting an unintended target. And frankly, when I go target shooting, it’s hit the bullseye and not to see how man rounds I can fire without the possibility of hitting one bullseye. BTW, we should be thankful the Las Vegas shooter used a bump stock, because if he had not, there might have been more deaths but less wounded.

Write me a law that can’t be interpreted to mean something other then what is written. If it were possible we wouldn’t need judges to tell us what it says. In court the glass is always half full and half empty. If this were not the case then all Supreme Court findings would be 9v0, not 5v4. Let ATF rule and stay out of the legislature. An elephant is a horse designed by committee.

I always thought that these bump fire stocks were a gimmick to separate you from your money. I don’t think that they should be banned just because they were used in a mass shooting. With a little practice a person could do the same thing manually or with another gimmick that’s used to waste money and ammunition.

I dont own a bump stock but feel very leery about the banning of anything dealing
With our second amendment rights. Assessories are a part of free market enterprise and banned or not, if a thug wants to obtain and use with intent to injure or kill another human being, he will do so. We ned to come down on criminals and leave law abiding citizens and our freedoms and rights alone.

Bump stocks should not be banned. One bullet, one pull of the trigger. My concern lies with Fostech’s echo 2 trigger. 2 bullets with one pull of the trigger – one bullet with pulling trigger and 1 bullet with releasing the trigger. I don’t think this echo 2 trigger should be banned, but I can see gun control advocates attempting to ban it.

All legal services are provided by independent third party program attorneys. U.S. & Texas LawShield are not law firms but legal services companies or similar entities regulated under state law, which provide benefits and coverage for their members. U.S. LawShield is underwritten by Fortegra Companies in many states. Fortegra Companies are rated A- (Excellent) for financial strength and operating performance by A.M. Best. In these states, all of our products are underwritten by one of the following Fortegra companies, depending on the state: Lyndon Southern Insurance Company, Response Indemnity Company of California, Blue Ridge Indemnity Company and Insurance Company of the South. 100% of the insurance administration, technology, and customer service is provided here, in the USA for U.S. & Texas LawShield.